Between Two Books
Final article by Rev. Mark Buch of the People’s Fellowship Tabernacle on his opinion as to the true Bible appears on this page today. Here he states various differences between the old Bible and the Revised Standard Version and why he prefers the old one.
By Mark Buch
Lovers of the Old Bible are accused that they base their resentment of the new Bible on emotionalism and prejudice of the National Council of Churches. Thus speak the sponsors of the Revised Standard Version to justify the terrific wave of resentment and offence which their Bible has caused among Evangelicals in general and Fundamentalists in particular.
As you have followed this series on the truth of verbal inspiration, it is no doubt clear to you that this is far from being true. The deep love and reverence for the old Bible is based on the foundation of its great God-inspired historical manuscripts, combined with the masterful scholarship and devotion of the men who translated it. This is nowhere more obvious than in the comparison of the two Bibles.
For example, one finds whole passages which have held an esteemed place in the old Bible for hundreds of years, but now, alas, they are discredited or dropped out altogether in the new Bible, which, so its sponsors claim, “is now in a real sense the authorized translation for our Protestant churches.”
That very important passage, John 8:1-11, has been discredited by dropping it to the bottom of the page in italics and very fine unreadable print, thereby saying that these blessed words which have brought peace and new hope to thousands of fallen men and women are not true.
Many, many endless changes in wording have been made. These words have not been exchanged for the much-vaunted, more up-to-date English words, but they have been changed with words, the meaning of which has altered the whole basic doctrines of the old Bible.
Here are a few cases: Why is “Son” in Psalms 2:12 changed to “feet” in the new Bible? In Job 19:26, the words “in my flesh” have been changed to “without my flesh”; thus the doctrine of the resurrection of the body has been shaken to its very foundation and given way to an ethereal, shadowless, ghost-like immortality in the hereafter.
Indeed, it can be said of the Revised Standard Version: “They have taken away my Lord and I know not where they have laid him!”
In Isaiah 7:14 “virgin” has been changed to “woman” and with that “little” change goes our whole concept of the virgin Birth. In Hebrews 2:10, “captain” has been changed to “pioneer.”
Let those who in pious tones undermine the Old Book face facts. To say that the translators of the Authorized Version were blind and ignorant of these vast differences is shaming the integrity of yesterday’s Christian nobility both as to character and scholarship. And, further, it is robbing the martyr of his crown!
We know living languages change. We also know certain words have changed from their original meaning in our old English Bible. Most of them are corrected by the margin in many editions of the Authorized Version and no one certainly would object to them being brought up to their English meaning today. But to use this small change as a pretext to completely alter the doctrinal teaching and original meaning of the text as well as to remove altogether from the Bible scores of passages is an affront upon the Holy Scriptures.
The masterful Elizabethan English of the Authorized Version is unexcelled in the world. Its clear declarations and beautifully simple language thrills the heart as it feeds the mind and soul. For example, taken from Psalm 42:1 give the old and new versions side by side: “As the hart panteth after the water brooks So panteth my soul after thee, O God, My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God.”
“As the hart longs for flowing streams So longs my soul for thee, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.”
One quickly sees and feels which of the above is the Word of God.
This Book is God’s peculiar gift to the English-speaking world. Read it! Heed it! Believe it! As one wise woman said in yonder yesterday: “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it!” And thou shalt be saved, for salvation’s message is so simple that the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein. Is. 35:8
“In Defence of the Authorized Version”
~~ One Pastor’s
This is four of four; each one first appeared in the
HOW THE EXCITING STORY OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION
FOUND ITS WAY INTO THE PAGES OF THE
DAILY PROVINCE NEWSPAPER
The printing of the Vancouver Daily province of the unfolding drama of the Bible battle is a story by itself worth telling. While the
One day I was asked if I would meet the editor, Mr. Cunningham. We met in his spacious office overlooking
“I can’t see it. The Bible to me is the Bible, whatever the version. What’s the difference?” I immediately took him up on that, handing him the Authorized Version and opened to Colossians 1:14.
“You are a man of words. You live by your knowledge of English. I also do in a way.” Then putting my finger on verse 14 I asked that he read it. He did, out loud! Then I asked,
“Which is the most important phrase in that verse?” After a very brief pause he answered,
“Through his blood.”
“Why?” I asked.
“Through his blood tells us how” was his answer. I stressed how important this was. I then handed him a copy of the R.S.V. I believe it was the first edition out. I still have it. Opening it to the same text I asked him to read it. He began again, reading out loud and then stopped after the first line and with furrowed brow looked up and said,
“Why, the phrase ‘through his blood’ is missing, but why?”
“Either they refused to translate it out of the prejudice to the old time faith of our fathers which requires the blood of God’s sacrificial (sic) lamb Jesus Christ to wash away our sins, or it wasn’t in the Greek manuscripts they used.” Looking up at me he asked,
“What do you think?” I answered,
“Knowing what we do of the R.S.V. translators committee, I’d say they spurned the Majority Text or Textus Receptus and used rather the polluted Westcott and Hort line of manuscripts.” After a moments silence he asked,
“Could you prepare a series of articles on the historicity of the Authorized Version of the Bible?”
Mark Buch (1910-1995) of